It's hard to see anything but a Leinster win here. This is an ideal opportunity for Leinster to get 5 points against an Edinburgh side that only mustered a try bonus point against Zebre in the final minutes. With a tough trip to Ulster the following week, this might be a good opportunity for Leinster to rest/not risk a few key players.

For Edinburgh, I don't think a top 6 place is vital. Of course it would be nice to see the likes of Toulon/Saracens/Wasps/Racing come to Murrayfield although it would not help to develop young players (or the whole team tbh). I'd like to see Edinburgh use the run-in to finish the season on a high and bring back the strong defence that has gone on holiday recently.

Last edited by Nematode on Thu 14 Apr 2016, 1:02 pm; edited 2 times in total

RDW_Scotland wrote:What is very scary is that a few cm higher and that could have been a broken neck. Given the speed everything happened at it is incredibly good luck that he walked up from it.

So whatever people think about the technicalities, surely we can agree it was incredibly reckless (but not deliberate) and it is only down to luck that it wasn't much worse?

Yep I agree, but you know- this is the nature of rugby now. They put GPS on all the players at Ulster, and the G-Force of one (legal) Nick Williams tackle was measured as being higher than a car crash. The long-term effects of being subjected to such impacts on a regular basis are not yet understood. This generation of players are guinea pigs in a lot of ways.

At the highest level, I think it's now possible for careers to be ended and lives to be ruined by even things that are completely within the laws to the game and it makes me doubt my support of rugby. I question whether its sustainable. I suppose if things like MMA and Boxing carry on rugby will too. As it stands, If I had kids think I would encourage them to take up a different sport. I would not encourage them to play rugby despite my deep love of the game.

People probably look at me like I have two heads when I say that the fact he could have broken his neck isn't enough to say the other player was in the wrong or to say that he should be cited, but thats how I feel. To me it seems like hypocrisy to both suggest players have a duty of care and to coach them to impose their physicality on the game. The speed of the game, the size and strength of the players and the nature of competing means you're going to get this kind of incident even if players go out with the best will in the world and conduct themselves as true sportsmen. Of course players have a duty to stay within the laws of the game, but that doesn't guarantee safety and it doesn't rule out accidents.

This is a sport where the rules around tackling and contact where developed for normal-sized amateurs and in the era of super-conditioned giants the professional game is now not safe to play on a fundamental level.

Last edited by Notch on Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

RDW_Scotland wrote:What is very scary is that a few cm higher and that could have been a broken neck. Given the speed everything happened at it is incredibly good luck that he walked up from it.

So whatever people think about the technicalities, surely we can agree it was incredibly reckless (but not deliberate) and it is only down to luck that it wasn't much worse?

Yep I agree, but you know- this is the nature of rugby now. They put GPS on all the players at Ulster, and the G-Force of one (legal) Nick Williams tackle was measured as being higher than a car crash. The long-term effects of being subjected to such impacts on a regular basis are not yet understood. This generation of players are guinea pigs in a lot of ways.

At the highest level, I think it's now possible for careers to be ended and lives to be ruined by even things that are completely within the laws to the game and it makes me doubt my support of rugby. I question whether its sustainable. I suppose if things like MMA and Boxing carry on rugby sill too. As it stands, If I had kids think I would encourage them to take up a different sport. I would not encourage them to play rugby despite my deep love of the game.

People probably look at me like I have two heads when I say that the fact he could have broken his neck isn't enough to say the other player was in the wrong or to say that he should be cited, but thats how I feel. To me it seems like hypocrisy to both suggest players have a duty of care and to coach them to impose their physicality on the game. The speed of the game, the size and strength of the players and the nature of competing means you're going to get this kind of incident even if players go out with the best will in the world and conduct themselves as true sportsmen. Of course players have a duty to stay within the laws of the game, but that doesn't guarantee safety and it doesn't rule out accidents.

This is a sport where the rules around tackling and contact where developed for normal-sized amateurs and in the era of super-conditioned giants the professional game is now not safe to play on a fundamental level.

You make a good point eloquently put,but I just can't fathom in what universe that tackle can only be classed as a penalty in the laws of the game. If that really is the case then the laws need re-written. What will parents and kids think seeing that tackle and how it was treated in the eyes of the law?

It is farcical to think that a reckless tackle that was very close to being seriously dangerous is worthy of the same punishment as an accidental offside following a knock on...!

But thats just the issue; if thats going to be a red card offence, we can't just penalise that and stop there. It's not an individual one-off thing and its not a case of a player being malicious or even particularly reckless in my opinion. It's clumsiness in a game where even a slightly mistimed hit can be dangerous. If you look you'll actually see McFadden is so wrong footed he gets his head and neck in the complete wrong place and is actually lucky not to get injured himself. Reckless, or a wrong footed player trying to tackle a tricky winger who is running at full pelt? Fine line between the two I suppose.

If we want to cut that out we need to fundamentally change the laws surrounding contact, which form much of the basis for the game of rugby union. Players are coached to go high to stop the offload, to target the ball, and to hit the tackle with as much force as is humanly possible- and when you spend as much time in the gym as these guys do thats a lot of force. So 50/50s like this are inevitable. So whatever happens with McFadden, these tackles will keep happening because they are a product of the rules and of coaching as opposed to being dirty play. So in my view either we say thats the risk you take when you step onto the pitch or you say we need to re-evaluate the entire contact area to improve player safety. Those are the choices. Like the 'taking the man out in the air' debate, it sometimes seems like World Rugby are burying their head in the sand and passing the buck onto the shoulders of individual players instead.

On reflection I would quite like it if they said all tackles need to be around or below the waist, no choke tackle, no shoulder-high tackles- because suddenly the offload becomes incredibly potent, and I'd rather watch a game of creating space than a demolition derby.

TJ wrote:No one is claiming bias - but its a clear no arms tackle and high. no question at all.

I'm not sure how you can say there is no bias and still come to that conclusion, to be somewhat direct- I think in the cold light of day after the immediate poist-game emotions have cooled it won't be such a big deal. I've no dog in this fight myself. If they're going to cite him and ban him it'll only weaken them ahead of their visit to Ravenhill so its very much in my interest to be wrong about this and I won't mind if I am!

I can say that because it is clear. He hits him shoulder to chin and no attempt to grasp - so its both high and no arms according to the rules of the game. the arms flair around the player after the hit because of the force of the collision. Its really clear and obvious from that gif on twitter.

I think what this showed was the lack of quality referees in the Pro12. If you consider what Nigel Owens would have done, he'd have watched the replay a few times and communicated CLEARLY with the TMO to ensure they were on the same wavelength. Mitrea rushed the decision and got it wrong. I would say though, and this complaint isn't specific to this case, TMOs must be more vocal and helpful. There is no point having them if they don't pipe up if their comment is misheard or the wrong decision is made.

How it was not at least a yellow card escapes me (in the 77th minute too...). In a culture where attention is being focused on safety/ player welfare, if making a tackle that is inches from career ending (broken neck) is only a penalty, well, rugby has an awful lot of catching up to do.

Overall some good signs from Edinburgh, thought Hoyland was good in open space and Tollis had a good came (CDP, Brown too) but I think the end of the season can't come soon enough.

The front row, dfn, is exhausted and it shows. Sutherland and McInally played better when they came on. Kennedy has some good aspects to his game but can be slower than a Tortoises' zimmer frame and makes some howlers. I think AS also made a selection mistake with Dean starting. Allen was good but Beard should have started.

Ugly. Really ugly. An upward rising shoulder straight into the face when the defender had several seconds to shape on the attacking player. No arms. Why shouldn't that have been a red?

Because that's how you see it. Others see it differently.

Law 10.4(e) and (g) describes it very clearly.

Let's see if the Citing Commissionee agrees with the view that 'intending' to do something is naturally the same as 'attempting' to do it. I intend to lose some weight but am aware that it won't happen unless I actually attempt to do it.

I didn't quite realise how badly messed up our backline became last night - we ended up with a winger in the centre, scrum half on the wing and a flanker on the wing for the last 10 minutes.

Yet despite all that we played some fantastic rugby - much better than the dross we saw in the first 40 (and indeed we've seen most of this season).

A similar thing happened Connacht at home - we fell behind on the scoreboard and in the last 20 minutes, with a very young team out, we played some fantastic rugby and managed to claw back a lbp. Sutherland, Watson and Allen turned the game last night

So it is clear that the experienced starting XV is serving up some absolute dross, and the young inexperienced players are playing some positive attacking rugby.

Solomons rates experience above all else and it is holding us back just now. I'm not sure what our gameplan actually is for the opening 40 minutes but it leads to some god awful rugby. I'd love to see him pick a team like the following and give them freedom to just play some rugby:

Jeez lads, I watched the first 40 and decided that spending some time with MrsPip would be more riveting.

McFadden should have been red carded, no debate no mitigating factors. He was not in the correct position to make a good tackle so he dropped his shoulder and drove it into the winger. No attempt at a tackle whatsoever. McFadden was unlucky, possibly, that he hit his man higher than he intended, possibly but we don't know. At best it was reckless and dangerous and should have been dealt with more severely.

Top marks to Hoyland for getting straight up and getting on with the game.

McFadden's tackle was poor in every aspect and he could have seriously injured himself and Hoyland. I expected a yellow card at least (could easily have been a red) but in no way should it have been a penalty try.

The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

tigertattie wrote:The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

communication breakdown? Easily done in the heat of the moment with crowd noise, players shouting etc.When people say that they wish for consistency that will always be hard to acheive as many of these decisions are a matter of opinion not fact

I do feel a bit sorry for Mitrea tho - I thought he had a good game and is becoming one of the top pro 12 refs - but this would appear to be a glaring blunder

Hardie was giving Madigan the treatment tho - really hustling him and got in a couple of good(lateish) hits. that would put anyone off their game. I didn't see madigan complaining tho which was nice to see.

I think this game really summed up Edinburgh this season. We really did see the good, the bad and the ugly.

In the first half, we saw Edinburgh's defence of old, in the second, it was non-existent. In phases there was good build up play and good decisions made, in other areas, some absolute howlers.

What is interesting to watch though is the changing of the guard happening in some areas. Sutherland & McInally brought real physicality when they came on and had a bigger impact on the game than Dickinson and Ford, who are in desperate need of a rest. Bradbury too seems to be comfortable at this level and is developing into a terrific player. For next season, I would expect they will all be pushing hard to be regular starters.

Player Ratings15. Blair Kinghorn - 5: Some poor kicks and didn't offer much threat from the back.

14. Damien Hoyland - 7: The lead up to that incident showed just how exciting a prospect he can be. He needs to back himself far more though.

13. Chris Dean - 5: Little impact, slipped off tackles.

12. Phil Burleigh - 6: Little impact and silly penalty - has there been a change in tactic as he isn't kicking nearly as much?

11. Tom Brown - 7: Made a decent amount of breaks - should be at FB IMO.

10. Jason Tovey - 7: Should have found touch but a good pass to Brown/

9. Sam Hidalgo-Clyne - 7: Looking sharper, still not as good as last season.

tigertattie wrote:The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

communication breakdown? Easily done in the heat of the moment with crowd noise, players shouting etc.When people say that they wish for consistency that will always be hard to acheive as many of these decisions are a matter of opinion not fact

I do feel a bit sorry for Mitrea tho - I thought he had a good game and is becoming one of the top pro 12 refs - but this would appear to be a glaring blunder

Mitrea had looked at the screen himself (as Owens does) and said to the TMO that McFadden had made an attempt to use his arms. The TMO countered him saying it was a no arms tackle. Mitrea then responded by agreeing that it was a no arms tackle but only because it was badly timed and therefore in his interpretation only a penalty. He effectively directed the TMO to agree that it was only a penalty.

Hoyland immediately got up and played on until he realised he should have gone down, but that was so long after the tackle, he was told to get back up again. OTOH McFadden stayed down garnering some sympathy until the decision was made and then he got up quickly to get on with the game. If the winger had stayed down there is no doubt that McFadden would have seen yellow or red - he didn't so should Mitrea have carded him for what the ref saw as purely an accident? Penalising accidents will never change behaviours because accidents are never intentional in the first place.

As Notch says above the current Laws are in dire need of reform because of professionalism and the increasing image of a brutal dangerous game. The tackle area is the current hot topic and incidents like this serve to turn up the gas. According to the Laws there are fairly equal arguments to suggest that Mitrea got the decision right AND McFadden should have seen red - that's a good indicator to suggest the Laws need urgently looked at.

Which part of the laws would say it was an accident so should not incur sanction? I disagree with you - this was the laws wrongly applied not the laws not being clear - its just a reffing mistake - they happen all the time.

The Great Aukster wrote:Mitrea had looked at the screen himself (as Owens does) and said to the TMO that McFadden had made an attempt to use his arms. The TMO countered him saying it was a no arms tackle. Mitrea then responded by agreeing that it was a no arms tackle but only because it was badly timed and therefore in his interpretation only a penalty. He effectively directed the TMO to agree that it was only a penalty.

Hoyland immediately got up and played on until he realised he should have gone down, but that was so long after the tackle, he was told to get back up again. OTOH McFadden stayed down garnering some sympathy until the decision was made and then he got up quickly to get on with the game. If the winger had stayed down there is no doubt that McFadden would have seen yellow or red - he didn't so should Mitrea have carded him for what the ref saw as purely an accident? Penalising accidents will never change behaviours because accidents are never intentional in the first place.

As Notch says above the current Laws are in dire need of reform because of professionalism and the increasing image of a brutal dangerous game. The tackle area is the current hot topic and incidents like this serve to turn up the gas. According to the Laws there are fairly equal arguments to suggest that Mitrea got the decision right AND McFadden should have seen red - that's a good indicator to suggest the Laws need urgently looked at.

tigertattie wrote:The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

communication breakdown? Easily done in the heat of the moment with crowd noise, players shouting etc.When people say that they wish for consistency that will always be hard to acheive as many of these decisions are a matter of opinion not fact

I do feel a bit sorry for Mitrea tho - I thought he had a good game and is becoming one of the top pro 12 refs - but this would appear to be a glaring blunder

Mitrea had looked at the screen himself (as Owens does) and said to the TMO that McFadden had made an attempt to use his arms. The TMO countered him saying it was a no arms tackle. Mitrea then responded by agreeing that it was a no arms tackle but only because it was badly timed and therefore in his interpretation only a penalty. He effectively directed the TMO to agree that it was only a penalty.

Hoyland immediately got up and played on until he realised he should have gone down, but that was so long after the tackle, he was told to get back up again. OTOH McFadden stayed down garnering some sympathy until the decision was made and then he got up quickly to get on with the game. If the winger had stayed down there is no doubt that McFadden would have seen yellow or red - he didn't so should Mitrea have carded him for what the ref saw as purely an accident? Penalising accidents will never change behaviours because accidents are never intentional in the first place.

As Notch says above the current Laws are in dire need of reform because of professionalism and the increasing image of a brutal dangerous game. The tackle area is the current hot topic and incidents like this serve to turn up the gas. According to the Laws there are fairly equal arguments to suggest that Mitrea got the decision right AND McFadden should have seen red - that's a good indicator to suggest the Laws need urgently looked at.

I think it was only an accident in that McFadden didn't intend to catch him high. At first I thought he did, but prof pointed out that Hoyland dropped his knees just before impact. So that was accidental, but leading with the shoulder wasn't. Everything about the way McFadden set himself up for the tackle suggests he intended to lead with the shoulder. Mitrea isn't a bad ref, but his claim that McFadden didn't have time to wrap his arm around is just nonsense. It was a no arm tackle, the TMO seen it as a no arm tackle, and should have been penalised accordingly with a card. In my opinion Mitrea did bottle it. Fair play to Hoyland for getting up right away, and playing on, but agree that if he had have stayed down the ref may have awarded a card. Also agree that McFadden may have been acting for a bit of sympathy.

On another note, and to the Edinburgh folk; as an Ulster supporter it's great to see Allen playing so well for Edinburgh. We did say he would be a good signing for you lot

I think we need to teach Mitrea about physics. He claims the impact prevented McFadden's arm from coming round. This is utter testicles as momentum would have had his hands flying forward. The fact that they remained behind McFadden on collision can only mean that McFadden himself elected to keep his arms back. Therefore there can be no argument that not using arms was a conscious decision on McFadden's part.

Nematode wrote:I think this game really summed up Edinburgh this season. We really did see the good, the bad and the ugly.

In the first half, we saw Edinburgh's defence of old, in the second, it was non-existent. In phases there was good build up play and good decisions made, in other areas, some absolute howlers.

What is interesting to watch though is the changing of the guard happening in some areas. Sutherland & McInally brought real physicality when they came on and had a bigger impact on the game than Dickinson and Ford, who are in desperate need of a rest. Bradbury too seems to be comfortable at this level and is developing into a terrific player. For next season, I would expect they will all be pushing hard to be regular starters.

Player Ratings15. Blair Kinghorn - 5: Some poor kicks and didn't offer much threat from the back.

14. Damien Hoyland - 7: The lead up to that incident showed just how exciting a prospect he can be. He needs to back himself far more though.

13. Chris Dean - 5: Little impact, slipped off tackles.

12. Phil Burleigh - 6: Little impact and silly penalty - has there been a change in tactic as he isn't kicking nearly as much?

11. Tom Brown - 7: Made a decent amount of breaks - should be at FB IMO.

10. Jason Tovey - 7: Should have found touch but a good pass to Brown/

9. Sam Hidalgo-Clyne - 7: Looking sharper, still not as good as last season.

I'm a little surprised McFadden hit him at all considering where he was looking. I would have had no complaints whatsoever with a yellow. It was stupid and reckless but rightly or wrongly, reckless does not equal red. I don't know what angle tigertattie is watching but any I saw showed McFadden's arms up, not 'behind' him.

Engine#4 wrote:I'm a little surprised McFadden hit him at all considering where he was looking. I would have had no complaints whatsoever with a yellow. It was stupid and reckless but rightly or wrongly, reckless does not equal red. I don't know what angle tigertattie is watching but any I saw showed McFadden's arms up, not 'behind' him.

Seriously? Just because there isn't definite intent to harm the player doesn't mean the offence isn't worthy of a red card.

Warburton in the SF was reckless and saw red.

Watson last week was reckless and saw red.

Payne against Sarries was reckless and saw red.

Scott Murray kicking Gough was reckless and saw red.

You Irish sure do some mean mental gymnastics to justify foul play when your boys are involved.

NO arms tackle is dangerous play which the ref has discretion over the level of sanction - pen / yellow / red as the ref sees fit. As this was also high and shoulder to chin it is too serious for no card IMO and as he was the last man its also worthy of a yellow possible penalty try. Red card would not have been out of order if maybe harsh but given the three aspects, no arms, high and last man he was very lucky to get away with no card at all

These sorts of incidents can only be at the refs discretion or we get absurdities in the other direction but I am pretty sure that Mitrea on reflection will think he got it wrong.

I hope so because Mitrea is developing into a good ref and like us all he will learn from his mistakes ( I hope)

No citing yet tho that I can see?

should Hoyland have "done a Sexton" and had a good roll around on the ground? I do have sympathy for Sexton as he is always a target for late and cheap shots so I do understand if not condone why he makes a meal of things - he doesn't fake foul play on him but he does make sure the ref sees it.

Engine#4 wrote:I'm a little surprised McFadden hit him at all considering where he was looking. I would have had no complaints whatsoever with a yellow. It was stupid and reckless but rightly or wrongly, reckless does not equal red. I don't know what angle tigertattie is watching but any I saw showed McFadden's arms up, not 'behind' him.

Seriously? Just because there isn't definite intent to harm the player doesn't mean the offence isn't worthy of a red card.

Warburton in the SF was reckless and saw red.

Watson last week was reckless and saw red.

Payne against Sarries was reckless and saw red.

Scott Murray kicking Gough was reckless and saw red.

You Irish sure do some mean mental gymnastics to justify foul play when your boys are involved.

Payne got a red against Sarries yet every subsequent similar incident that I have seen since has been deemed not a red card. The ref was backed by his employers in that incident and then they quietly rowed back.

Governing rugby bodies have made it clear that being reckless does not necessarily equal a red card. Mike Brown was not penalised for reckless use of the boot in the 6 nations. POC was not cited for kicking Dave Kearney in the head. Guirado got nothing for his tackle on Kearney. Like it or not there is nothing definitive to say that McFadden should have seen red. As for 'penalty try'...yes, Hoyland would have scored if McFadden had not attempted to tackle him. Was McFadden supposed to stand to one side and wave him by?

No RDW - Its a penalty try if in the opinion of the ref the player who committed the foul was not on the pitch a try would be scored. the player guilty of foul play has to be taken out of the equation so only if other defenders were in a position to stop Hoyland is it not a case for a penalty try. Having said that this is not cast iron in this case by any means. still had 20 m to go to the line, a number of defenders chasing one at least of which might have been able to stop him. It would take a bold ref to give a penalty try.

Last edited by TJ on Sun 17 Apr 2016, 7:49 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : edited for clarity)

TJ wrote:No RDW - Its a penalty try if in the opinion of the ref the player who committed the foul was not on the pitch. the player guilty of foul play has to be taken out of the equation so only if other defenders were in a position to stop Hoyland is it not a case for a penalty try. Having said that this is not cast iron in this case by any means. still had 20 m to go to the line, a number of defenders chasing one at least of which might have been able to stop him. It would take a bold ref to give a penalty try.

I thought it was 'in the act of scoring'. The reason being a Leinster v Munster game where Tomas O'Leary took Cian Healy high 5metres out and caused him to knock on. The ref referred it to the TMO and the verdict was yellow card for the high tackle but that it was too far out to consider a penalty try.

"A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off"

"Advantage may be played for acts of foul play, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded."

From the IRB site http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?search=penalty+try&x=13&y=21